Quoting "Kenneth M. Steele" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
<snip ..>
>
> On the other hand, Rauscher did report a Mozart effect
in rats.
> Rats exposed in utero and 60 days postpartum to the
same Mozart
> piano sonata, as used with the college students,
showed a
> significant increase in solution time in 6-unit
T-mazes.
> And for those who have followed this literature, the
control
> music was the same, Philip Glass' "Music with changing
parts."
>
> Poor Philip Glass...
I always thought Philip Glass was a strange control
condition for the original Rauscher studies. In the
article that follows Ken Steele's (Nantais, K.M. &
Schellenberg, G. (1999) The Mozart Effect: An Artifact
of Preference. Psychological Science, 10, 370-373.) they
used Schubert (I believe) and also a passage of prose
reading (a Stephen King passage) in two separate
studies. The "Schubert effect" was as great as the
Mozart effect. In their second study there was no
overall difference between listening to Mozart vs
Stephen King, but, there was an effect for whatever
people preferred. If people liked Stephen King more,
their scores went up. For those that preferred Mozart,
their scores went up.
For the rat research, there should also be a range of
control groups, including other classical music, and
other music. But is such a program of research worth the
effort? Lots of things will temporarily boost scores on
any DV. Stare out the window and breath deeply for 10
minutes and you'd probably see the same effect. If the
effects are fleeting, is it worth pursuing any more?
Besides, if you read Ken's article (same issue p.
366-369) there is even a question about the basic effect
being replicated under conditions that are supposed to
produce it (nice article, Ken).
The original question (from Jean) was interesting
because it raised the developmental issue. I would
think this would be a good study, though given what we
know about IQ in general, I doubt we'll ever see a magic
bullet effect emerge.
>From a musical standpoint, it never made sense to me
that the effect should revolve around Mozart in
particular. Sure, Mozart was great - perhaps the most
gifted composer known to us. But his compositions
are not that different from those of Hayden. And if
Mozart was singled out because it tweaked our spatial
sense, J.S. Bach would be a better choice. Mozart is
noted for his ability to blend German (spatial) harmony
and Italian melody. There is nothing unique about his
counter-point - it's just more pleasant than Bach for
most people. I have not listened to this particular
Glass piece, but I would imagine that its lacks the
pleasant quality of Mozart's pieces.
Just back from a Quebec fishing expedition, and feeling
feisty :) Au revoir!
----------------------
John W. Kulig
Plymouth State College
Plymouth NH 03264 USA
http://oz.plymouth.edu/~kulig
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
".... I was created in secret and curiously wrought in
the lower parts of
the earth" Psalm 139
--------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
